* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of order: 28^th May, 2024 + W.P.(C) 5577/2007 J.B.BODA SURVEYORS LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vinay Sabharwal and Mr.

Karunesh Shah, Advocates versus SURESH KUMAR SHARMA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S. Kumar, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“I. Quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 8.9.06 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. I, Karkardooma Delhi in LCA No. 46/98 titled „Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma V/s M/s J.B. Boda Surveyors Co. Ltd.':

II. Holding and declaring the Respondent No. 1 to be not entitled to any relief…”

2. The petitioner is an incorporated company engaged in the business of running surveyors. The respondent no. 1 („respondent workman‟ hereinafter)

was working in the petitioner entity since 1992 till the year 1998.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5577/2007 Page 1 of 11

3. Allegedly, the respondent workman remained absent from his duty since 30^th May, 1998 and subsequently, he filed an application bearing no. 46/98 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 („I.D. Act‟

hereinafter) seeking earned wages and bonus etc.

4. Pursuant to completion of the proceedings, the learned Labour Court passed an order dated 8^th September, 2006 („impugned order‟ hereinafter), thereby, directing the petitioner to pay earned wages and bonus amount of Rs. 16,405/-., The learned Court did not adjudicate on the issue of payment of minimum wages on the ground that it lacks of jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court erred in adjudicating the application as the claims made by the petitioner were not maintainable in the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act.

7. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the respondent workman did not establish that he is entitled to get leave wages and other emoluments. Furthermore, it is also submitted that the respondent workman did not provide details about the said legal entitlement. 8. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the plea regarding payment of bonus can only be adjudicated by way of reference and not by filing an application under Section 33 C(2).

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5577/2007 Page 2 of 11

9. It is also submitted that the respondent workman failed to produce any proof with regard to any overtime work which has allegedly been done him, and therefore, in absence of the same, the grant of overtime wages is not sustainable under the law.

10. In view of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition be allowed and reliefs be granted as prayed.

11. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent workman vehemently opposed the instant petition submitting to the effect that the present petition is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law and therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

12. It is submitted that the respondent workman was working as a clerk in the petitioner entity and was getting the wages below the minimum wages as statutorily prescribed.

13. It is submitted that the respondent workman had requested for payment of the adequate wages, however, the petitioner did not pay heed to any such request. The learned counsel for the respondent workman also apprised this Court that the said factum was also duly noted by the Labour Inspector and directions to pay the minimum wages was given by the said Labour Inspector.

14. It is also submitted that the petitioner had terminated the services of the respondent workman, and the same was done